Never shipped a product, only started describing its tech as "tiles" in 2011.

A company with a few patents but no products to its name—meeting the common definition of a "non-practicing entity" or "patent troll"—has sued Microsoft, claiming to have invented the tile-based interface used in Windows Phone and Windows 8.

Known as SurfCast and based in Portland, Maine, the company's website shows that it has only one thing on its mind—patent litigation. The home page describes its "Operating System technology" without referencing any actual products, while the site's "News" section contains only one item—the lawsuit (PDF) filed yesterday against Microsoft in US District Court in Maine.

"We developed the concept of Tiles in the 1990s, which was ahead of its time. Microsoft’s Live Tiles are the centerpiece of Microsoft’s new Operating Systems and are covered by our patent," SurfCast CEO Ovid Santoro says in a quote posted on the site.

The website has been around since 1999, it seems, but its layout is the same as it was in 2003. All that's changed is how SurfCast describes its technology—the latest versions of its website have been edited to make SurfCast technology sound more like Microsoft's.

SurfCast owns four patents and is suing Microsoft over one of them, #6,724,403 (applied for in 2000 and received in 2004), which covers a "System and method for simultaneous display of multiple information sources."

"In particular, the present invention comprises a graphical user interface which organizes content from a variety of information sources into a grid of tiles, each of which can refresh its content independently of the others," the patent reads.

That does indeed sound similar to Microsoft's tile-based interface used in Windows 8 and Windows Phone, in which so-called "live tiles" represent applications and provide updated information on the home screens of tablets, phones, and PCs. But Microsoft has at least one of its own patents on the technology, applied for in 2006 and granted in 2011, covering a "Tile space user interface for mobile devices."

The Microsoft patent makes references to dozens of previous patents, including the one referenced in SurfCast's lawsuit and two others owned by Santoro. The Microsoft patent was ultimately granted, so the US Patent and Trademark Office felt the invention was unique enough to pass muster during the review process. But SurfCast's lawsuit seizes upon a temporary rejection Microsoft received earlier in the patent review process.

"During prosecution of the application that issued as the ’632 patent, the Patent Examiner cited the ’403 patent as relevant prior art as part of a Non-Final Rejection dated April 21, 2009," SurfCast's lawsuit states. "Accordingly, Microsoft had knowledge of the ’403 patent at least as early as April 21, 2009."

SurfCast accuses Microsoft of infringing the '403 patent in all versions of Windows 8 and Windows RT, Windows Phone 7, and the Microsoft Surface. SurfCast also accuses Microsoft of inducing its customers to infringe the SurfCast patent by using Microsoft products, and of instructing developers to write applications that infringe the patent.

SurfCast says it has suffered "harm and injury" as a result of Microsoft's infringement. But since SurfCast claims to have invented its tile-based technology in the 1990s and doesn't sell any products based upon it, it's hard to see how Microsoft's use of tiles in a brand-new operating system is costing the company any revenue.

A look at the WayBack Machine shows that in 2004 SurfCast was touting its patented technology without even using the word "tile." At the time, SurfCast claimed to be building a new interface "to get the most out of broadband's speed."

"SurfCast's new type of interface is a complete departure from the browser 'page paradigm' and WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointers). SurfCast makes concepts like 'browser', 'desktop', 'icon', 'history', and 'bookmark' obsolete," the company said back then.

In 2009, SurfCast described its technology as a "'live application' web-based service." SurfCast started using the word "tiles" to describe its technology sometime in 2011—after Microsoft started the tile-based interface in Windows Phone.

SurfCast's website lists seven founders and directors with experience at IBM, Perot Systems, Cisco, Deutsche Bank Capital, and other organizations. We've contacted SurfCast to ask if it makes or has ever made any products, and have also asked Microsoft for comment on the lawsuit. SurfCast is asking the court for an order declaring that Microsoft directly infringed its patent and induced others to do so. SurfCast did not ask for an injunction preventing the sale of any Microsoft products. Instead, it wants "Microsoft to account for and pay to SurfCast all damages caused to SurfCast by reason of Microsoft’s patent infringement."

UPDATE: Microsoft responded to us with a short statement reading “We are confident we will prove to the court that these claims are without merit and that Microsoft has created a unique user experience.”

Since Surfcast never sold anything, it has no damages, Thus Microsoft should send a check for zero dollars and zero cents.

But you see, they would have sold a license to Microsoft, for a billion-gazillion dollars, if only MS hadn't infringed.

Or if this company had made itself remotely known to them before this point instead of hiding in the shadows waiting for the release date when it's too late for MS to do anything to get out of the way.

I mean, the ideas behind Windows 8 have been public for almost a year now. If they happen to choose the day after the retail release date to make their patent known, one would think that was a little bit suspicious, no?

These non practicing non inventing parasitic entities - one can only dream for programmable 3d printed robot hit mans. They will be a good solution in software patent cases. And defensive litigation will have a whole new meaning.

Well time to say goodbye little patent troll. MS will grind your bones into paste. Especially since they already knew about your patent and referenced it. MS is a very bad company to try and take a bite out of.

A form of visualisation is NOT an invention in any world I know. The same could be emulated with Windows 3.x (maybe earlier) by opening a number of windows with active content and placing them on a tile grid.

I haven't read the patent claims so I can be talking out of my ass, but in any case if all that's going on is the visualization itself, the patent needs to be nullified. Along with other UI patents such as 1-click-buy, swipe-to-unlock and similar idiotic so-called inventions.

Patents right now are probably a net disincentive to innovation, contrary to their original purpose. This is especially true for the software industry. If patent trolls push hard enough, they might just break the patent system enough for legislators to abolish them. Which would be a weird - but maybe desirable - outcome.

Honest question. Just what exactly is it going to take to finally make REAL changes to software patents so that they STOP stifling innovation? Which I thought was the exact OPPOSITE reason for them existing in the first place?

A form of visualisation is NOT an invention in any world I know. The same could be emulated with Windows 3.x (maybe earlier) by opening a number of windows with active content and placing them on a tile grid.

I am torn on this. In general I think visualisation patents are bogus. However we do know that UI or look and feel does matter. There needs to be some kind of protection for this.

In the physical world the look and feel of a device is largely controlled by its materials and manufacturing techniques, something that is well built would be hard to copy. At the very least a competitor needs to spend as much time and money developing equivalent materials and processes.

In software when a unique UI is created the hard word is the R&D to create the UI, the part where you figure out what works best. The actual implementation of that concept is easy, so in turn copying it is very easy.

Certainly our system today is broken but I also don't like the idea of just getting rid of all protections for UI or look and feel type inventions.

Unfortunately, it will probably be cheaper for MS to give these trolls a few million dollars to go away then to actually fight in court.

Or,just a thought here, offer a bounty for the heads of the people behind this patent troll... literally

/joking

But seriously, it might be cheaper this time,but if you yield once - it'll just paint a bigger bullseye on your back because the other scum out there will know that your company is prepared to accept the shakedown and pay up.. If MS goes the other route and does its best to (as one previous poster delightfully said) grind them into paste, the other trolls out there will avoid Redmond out of pure AAA grade fear

But it looks like Surfcast put a lot of thought into this whole idea, along with how to enable it, and they filed a patent for it WAY before it was a gleam in Microsoft's eye. And were granted the patent long before Microsoft ever filed.

Given the law as it currently stands, it looks like they are more than just trolls looking to leverage an inconsequential piece. For something filed 12 years ago, it looks (on a cursory reading) like they are staking out a new interface paradigm.

We can argue about software patents, advisability thereof; and design patents, absurdity thereof. And we should. But given the time this was filed, it seems pretty forward-looking. Most people were still running Windows 98 back then...

It was my understanding that "submarine patents" like this were illegal even in the US, am I wrong here?

If a non practicing entity waits until a product has been released deliberately to try to increase their percieved "damages" and make it harder for the "infringer" to fix it then that invalidates their clame by a large degree or so i thought.

As a person who actually designs and creates physical objects of significant complexity for a living, I find the entire concept of UI patents reprehensible. Trademarked or copyrighted...OK, but a PATENT should be for furthering the art and science of a field. The fact that all these people are getting patents on fuzzy things like look and feel, yet I am not eligible for my PHYSICAL product is disgusting.

Am I the only one who feels like your patent should be invalidated if you don't make or have never made a product using it? I mean, if it's been 13+ years since you supposedly were going to change the world with your idea, shouldn't you at least have some kind of prototype by now?

Why isn't AOL suing Microsoft? Didn't they have the stupid tile looking interface for one of their home screens back in the day? They probably don't have a patent for it though... They could sure use the money

Y'all software patent bastards can reap the whirlwind! Y'all wanted intellectual property (IP) protection, y'all got it in spades! Non-practicing entities (NPEs) are just as entitled to IP protection as anybody else. A patent is a patent is a patent, that' why it's called Intellectual Property, 'cause its property and as such can be sold and bought freely, irregardless if the purchaser/seller is a NPE or not.This is what you get when you don't think things through. Y'all got greedy with your IP initiatives and when a NPE follows the rules that everyone else has to follow and files suit on your ass, y'all aren't entitled to whine.If you don't like it, abolish software patents. Do it soon because in a few years the patent litigation lawyers will be so powerful that y'all will be their bitches forever.Serves y'all right!

I totally agree. I hope the trolls win against Microsoft, and get their billion dollars. I hope they sue Google and Apple and anyone else within reach. I was sad that Apple didn't gouge Samsung for even more money.

Lets stop pretending this system works, and that if we cross our fingers or the right people spend enough money to squash someone, if only if only, then we'll somehow scrape by. Every day we just scrape by is proof that the system works and doesn't need to be fixed. Screw that, lets rush to the dead end as fast as we can, so we can get started on a new process that works. The lawmakers have proven over and over again that if the system isn't broke, they won't fix it. IT'S BROKE ALREADY!